Skip to main content

tv   MSNBC Live With Steve Kornacki  MSNBC  December 2, 2016 1:00pm-2:01pm PST

1:00 pm
competent jurors than you. >> that is judge versus jury in a case of michael slagr, a police officer who shot and killed an unarmed black man fleeing a traffic stop last year. so where does this trial go from here? plus, donald trump going off script. >> we are going to appoint mad dog mattis as our secretary of defense but we are not announcing it until monday, so don't tell anybody. madd dog, he's great. >> don't tell anybody? too late. general james mattis the newest nominee prosecute trump's administration. it may cast a shadow as a decorated war time. could that affect his confirmation? we will take you through this msnbc exclusive next. breaking news in new orleans. no charges, at least not yet, in
1:01 pm
the death of former nfl player joe mcknight. the sheriff's office said that ronald gasser admitted to shooting mcknight but still too early in the investigation to charge him. >> if we are truly worried about fairness and equity to all of the parties involved, they will allow this investigatory process to proceed in the deliberate and credible manner it should and will be conducted. >> and now we are learning new details about what exactly happened in those moments leading up to mcknight's death. >> mr. gasser did not stand over mr. mcknight and fire shots into him. the three casings were located within the vehicle.
1:02 pm
mr. gasser was in his vehicle when he fired three shots. >> so gasser was questioned last night by police and then released, not held. the sheriff is talking about why. >> out of an abundance of caution, look. the easiest thing for me would have been book him, dano. right? but the fact of the matter is that in trying to flush out these details as it relates to all of this and not having that rush to judgment and doing this in a very deliberate and appropriate fashion, we chose not to do that. >> msnbc jacob rascone is following the story in louisiana. you heard the sheriff talking about the moments leading up to this incident. his account saying contradicting, right? what an eyewitness had
1:03 pm
apparently told police that the suspect was standing over mcknight when this happened. what else do we know about the lead-up here and what may have unfolded? >> community activists and other concerned citizens have been out here all day demanding justice and answers fast. they want an indictment and horrified that this person, ronald gasser, who admitted to killing joe mcknight would he set free with no charges, at least not yet. the sheriff said not only with were the witnesses' statements misleading but they didn't match up with the facts of the case. there was some sort of road rage incident where maybe cut somebody off. they are not entirely sure there but after whatever consent happen -- incident happened joe mcknight walked up to gasser's car on the passenger side and gasser sitting in his driver's seat shot through the window three times, hitting him twice in the
1:04 pm
torso. the witness who said that gasser was standing over mcknight's body cursing at him and shooting at him were false and that is what a lot of those community activists and others we talked to today have been concerned about, how could he possibly be let go? how could there possibly be any sort of self-defense case here if he was standing over his body and shooting him? well, the sheriff said none of that happened and none of that is accurate. so there is still a lot of unclear points here but the sheriff basically said, look, we let him go because it's unclear whether this was a justified homicide or not and with we need time to collect the facts and we determined we would let him be out while we gathered those facts. they are still working with the d.a.'s office to come up whether there will be charges or not here. >> so that is sort of the process moving forward. it seems at this point is figure you out whether there is enough evidence here to charge ronald gasser in this case? >> reporter: right. there really is.
1:05 pm
there are some things that we have looked at here. there is, for example, a stand your ground type law that pertains to car jackings when somebody comes up to you and it's specific to louisiana. a number of things that they are going to look at. the sheriff eluded to some laws they are looking at that might make this justified and something in play here, we know that. >> jacob ra shortstscone, thank. ari, a lot of people are wondering why the sheriff let gasser go. >> you have to have a crime to charge someone with when you hold them for anything longer than just asking them questions or what is sometimes called custodial interrogations. the larger question we have moved past what happened yesterday is, is this person mr. gasser charged for a crime for what we do know, which is shooting someone who reportedly was unarmed and shooting them to
1:06 pm
death or not. i think that is the big question. we are looking at the footage there of mr. gasser there handcuffed outside of the car afterward. whether or not there were misstatements from witnesses which, quite frankly, is pretty common isn't a big issue. a xu >> does that play into the circumstances surrounding this, the last 48 hours here? >> what the police chief was calling the wrong set of the facts. also a journalist, i take issue with part of the chief's presentation today. he said the only facts that are coming out are from himself, the coroner, and the d.a. that is not true. journalists have a role in digging into these stories. the community has a role, obviously, if there is misinformation that may be misleading to the community. but what we basically heard was trust you, we are the government and everyone else go home. that's not how this works. so some scrutiny, not pressure, but some scrutiny of the government's role here and the investigation i think is perfectly proper and warranted. when you have charges you have not just the d.a.'s version of
1:07 pm
the events in fairness to mr. gasser you may have his lawyer's version of the erchts vents. what we also learned was that the man who actually raised joe mcknight, his sort of father figure is a sheriff's deputy in the sheriff's office and came out what i call an unusual part of this press conference. the chief bring up race. no one else did. not us reporting this far because that hasn't come in in terms of a direct evidence issue and certainly none of the reporters there, including gabe gutierrez. but then -- or jacob i should say. he is work ago different story for us today that i've been talking about. i will say that then chief norman brought up in this press conference we know race a factor. we don't know. we don't know much of what transpired here. i think it would be good for us to heed the chief's words even though he didn't live up to them all which is we don't know and that means we don't know what happened and we don't know whether it was a crime or potentially, based on the evidence, could be an argument
1:08 pm
that there was a justified shooting there. when one person is armed and the other isn't i wouldn't say the most natural theory is no crime. i would say the investigation would proceed on the possibility of a crime and i'm being as fair as possible. >> that brings me to the question, right? you know, there is a person who has been killed, shot and killed. we know that. there is somebody else who was at the scene with him. this person was questioned, ronald gasser, by police and brought in and then let go. why not just, from a legal perspective, from a law enforcement perspective, could they have just held him? you know? without speculating on whether or not he may ab flight risk. why not just hold him until they can figure out if there are charges? >> the short answer on this is we are not in north korea and not in cuba. the government cannot hold people even if they suspect them of serious crimes unless they are charged and then you're brought before the judge and the judge before the government is what is your probable cause for this. there may be nothing wrong with the fact the authorities don't
1:09 pm
have enough evidence to figure out what kind of information they would charge with and they want to get their evidence straight. the third question that people ask, wait, is this person a flight risk? they have, obviously, done what they think they need to do, the authorities, to secure this or keep an eye on a suspect to make sure if and when they did want to bring them in, they could. >> what are you looking for as far as what is next? >> i think what is next is what is the theory of the case what transpired between the two individuals before the shooting. we are told not good surveillance video that has emerged and some witness accounts are not reliable. what did mr. gasser say to precipitate the shooting and what other evidence was there? when you have this shooting in broad daylight, there isn't a enough to support a justified homicide until we learn the kind of information which we may. >> another case you've been
1:10 pm
watching today is a case we are watching also. a jury not able to reach a decision in the trial of michael slagr. a former police officer recorded on cell phone video shooting walter scott after a traffic stop. coming up, we are going live to charleston with the latest in this very high profile case. in politics, donald trump's latest cabinet pick getting high marks from the left and right with general james dog mattis for secretary of defense. now details from 15 years ago is coming out so could this hurt mattis going forward? we are diving into it next. but when (my) back pain got bad, i couldn't sleep. i had trouble getting there on time. then i found aleve pm. aleve pm is the only one to combine a sleep aid plus the 12 hour strength of aleve. for pain relief that can last into the morning. ♪ look up at a new day... hey guys! now i'm back.
1:11 pm
aleve pm for a better am. my dad called them up and asked for "the jennifer garner card" which is such a dad thing to do. after he gave his name the woman from capital one said "mr. garner, are you related to jennifer?" kind of joking with him. and my dad was so proud to tell her, "as a matter of fact, she is my middle daughter". so now dad has the venture card, he's earning his double miles, and he made a friend at the company. can i say it? go ahead! what's in your wallet? nice job dad. (toilet flush) if you need an opioid to manage your chronic pain, you may be sooo constipated it feels like everyone can go ...except you. tried many things? still struggling to find relief?
1:12 pm
you may have opioid-induced constipation, oic. it's different and may need a different approach. opioids block pain signals, but can also block activity in the bowel. which is why it can feel like your opioid pain med is slowing your insides to a crawl. longing for a change? have the conversation with your doctor about oic, and ask about prescription treatment options. made on behalf of those living with chronic pain and struggling with oic.
1:13 pm
1:14 pm
i don't want to tell you this because i want to save the suspense for next week. we are going to appoint mad dog mattis as our secretary of defense. but we are not announcing it until monday, so don't tell anybody! mad dog. he's great. >> so that was the surprise. cabinet announcement was last night in cincinnati from donald trump. the president-elect really wasn't expected to make a ton of news at his rally in cincinnati, at least not on the cabinet front. but according to his top aides, trump went off script and decided to announce that key appointment general james mattis as his defense secretary. nbc news uncovering accusations of an officer who fought alongside general mattis and said mattis refused to rescue or
1:15 pm
delayed the rescue of soldiers who were hit in a smart case in a friendly fire. in this exclusive report from nbc news, the officer says general mattis, quote, left my men to die. he has received bipartisan support from the senators who have to confirm him. technically he is not eligible for the post as of now because he hasn't been out of military service for the seven years that is required. to talk about that part of the story i bring in kelly o'donnell. when we talk about this waiver, we call this waiver for general mattis. the senate can waive the requirement. do you think it's going to end up happening or do you see that as being more of a barrier to his nomination? what is the political sense where you are? >> well, it is different from confirmation where only the senate is involved. this would enacting a new law that would exempt him. you talked about serving as the head of the department of defense where that is supposed to be a civilian job. this will be a multistep process
1:16 pm
where both the house and senate have to pass a law that exempts him and waiver is a casual word we have been all been using and not the technical term. only in this instance would they exempt him from this federal law. after that should that go forward and we expect some resistance because of the idea of the institution of having a civilian leader to the pentagon. let's say that clear that hurdle and then to the more traditional confirmation route where senate armed services would have that confirmation hearing and he would be asked questions including some i'm sure on the subject you were jug take about. also his history and record and how would he serve and the issue of being someone who has been a general in this position trying to find out from him if he can really separate himself from his long military career and serve as a civilian. if it clears that hurdle, then it goes to the full senate for confirmation. what is notable is both democrats and republicans speak very highly of him in terms of his background and his ideas and positions where he differs from donald trump, including on the
1:17 pm
use of torture. so hard to predict. but there are more steps for mattis that other big name cabinet nominees. >> among those other big named cabinet nominees are a few we still haven't heard about and among those, i think the high profile position of secretary of state is the one everyone is looking at. it was defense and now we have a sense of defense. what are you hearing about the jockeying of position for the secretary of state job and when we might hear something more from donald trump or his transition team? >> well, this really is one of the biggest jobs because it is fourth in the order of succession in the event of some tragic happening to the government. so it's very important. it's also one of the big symbols around the world when a secretary of state land in a country around the globe, they really are the united states. so it is big. we have seen the field expand. it was rudy giuliani and mitt romney a couple of names and david petraeus floated in there and now extended to the ceo realm of rex tiller of exxon. we don't have a specific timing
1:18 pm
but it does suggest that trump is having some difficulty coming to a determination or perhaps he is holding back on the big job to make an announcement at a time when he can have as big as splash as possible. we have seen what appear to be outward times where romney star roads and faded and the same thing with pa tray utah answer rudy giuliani said he wanted that job and not talked about in a public sense many days now. where is donald trump on this? it's a very big job. he is soliciting lots of opinions from those in his inner circle but much more broadly about the kind of person who should serve as secretary of state and there has been a real debate within his own inner circle about the type of person, the loyalty test, and the background they need to bring. >> kelly o'donnell, excellent points and not a bad thing for rudy giuliani the jockeying him is not -- because of comments
1:19 pm
made. i want to talk about mattis left men to die. walk us through your reporting, ken, and what you've learned. >> thanks. good to see you. so this is an old story that is gaining new currency now that mattis is trump's pick to run the pentagon. basically, 15 years ago on monday, actually, a group of army special forces green berets were on a secret mission and they were accompanying hamid karzai who later would become the president of afghanistan. they were hit by a u.s. smart bomb in a friendly fire incident. so we had two dead americans, many wounded americans, a bunch of dead afghan soldiers, and they needed a rescue mission so the army went to the closest american unit and that was a marine units commanded by general mattis a 45-minute flight away. the army asked him to please mount a helicopter rescue mission to bail out the wounded and mattis refused according to the green berets. all of this was chronicled in a
1:20 pm
2011 book whose author eric blum interviewed many of the people involved. mattis has never commented on it, though. so what happened is the mattis helicopters didn't launch. another group of helicopters flew from pakistan, three hours away to rescue the green berets and even though they weren't supposed to fly in daylight. jason amarin is a retired green beret now and commander of the system and said mattis left his men to field. mattis has not commented. we have reached out to mattis and the trump transition team, have not heard a response. . it's important to point out that there is no evidence that anybody died as a result of the length of time they are left in the field but many of the green berets have said they felled betrayed by mattis. >> ken, thanks very much. to be clear as you mentioned, general mattis has not responded
1:21 pm
or talked about that. i'm going on breaking news. judge talking to the jury in south carolina killing case, the shooting death of an unarmed black man. listen. >> our heart does want to have to tell the scott family that the man that killed their son, brother, and father, is innocent. but with the choices, i cannot and will not change my mind. that came not from the foreperson but from a juror. the foreperson then wrote, it's just one juror that has the issues. then the foreperson wrote, need to leave. that juror needs to leave. he is having issues. thank you.
1:22 pm
sorry for all of the notes. what says the state? [ inaudible ] i'm sure that -- and that would be our only option. >> what says the defense? >> your honor [ inaudible ]. >> as i stated earlier, most of the notes have been inartfully written. i read some of them clearer than
1:23 pm
they have been on paper. but the note says it's just one juror that has the issues. of course, it came along with the letter from the juror who says he cannot convict. the question is whether the wording of this note is just one juror that has the issues. is that a declaration by the jury that the jury is hopelessly deadlocked? or should the court get a clear declaration from the jury on that issue? a clearer declaration on that issue.
1:24 pm
>> i don't know any reason that a form for them to say we are deadlocked. >> well, that would be the question i would pose to the foreperson to make that declaration, if it should be done. >> i would object to you doing that. [ inaudible ]. >> well, generally, we would get a letter saying that, judge, we have deliberated some more and we still can't reach a verdict. as opposed to it's just one juror who has the issues. so i'm going to have the clerk go and have the jury foreperson let me know with clarity whether or not the jury is hopelessly deadlocked and we will sit right here.
1:25 pm
>> you have been watching the judge in the case against former police officer michael slagr in the shooting death of walter scott talk to the courtroom here. here is the situation, from what we understand. the jury, as we know earlier this afternoon, came back and delivered a couple of notes to the judge indicating that they had had been potentially deadlocked, unable to reach a decision. the judge essentially sent them back in to continue deliberations. now you heard the judge read a couple of notes that he received from the jury foreperson saying that there is one juror on this case who says he or she cannot change their mind and cannot find guilt, indicating perhaps that the jury is deadlocked but that is the question that the judge has now sent the clerk back into the jury room to try to figure out and try to assess here. there is some question on whether the foreperson is asking for this particular juror to be excused and what happens next now in this case. nbc gabe gutierrez is with us
1:26 pm
now outside of the courthouse. this is an afternoon of fast moving developments and sound this lone juror is causing some, i don't want to say delays, but potentially creating a deadlock situation. >> reporter: that's right. just within the past few minutes we learned that significant development. up until now we didn't know how many jurors couldn't agree on a verdict but according to that note just handed to the judge, it is one juror that is stopping this process right now. the jury, again, saying they cannot reach a consensus in this case. this has been, obviously, a difficult case for the jury to weigh. they have now spent more than 16 hours on this, over three days, deciding between either this guilty verdict on the murder charge or voluntary manslaughter or the acquittal. right now according to the foreperson, that one lone juror cannot in good conscience, the juror writes, find former officer slagr guilty. so that seems to suggest that
1:27 pm
the other jurors had found him or wanted to find him guilty on one of the two charges, either murder or voluntary manslaughter. at this point, that one juror that is refusing to go along with the rest of the jury. so significant development. right now, again, the judge at this point has not declared a mistrial yet. but it appears to be heading in that direction unless somehow that juror can change his mind. >> let me bring in ari melber on that. your reaction what we are learning now on the screen take a look now. a live look at that courtroom in south carolina. your take, ari. >> this is certainly dramatic and i will stop talking the moment we see the clerk return with any news from the foreperson. but in plain english, what you have here is the suggestion, according to written notes submitted to the judge, that this jury was very close to voting for some kind of guilty
1:28 pm
verdict. we don't know on what charge. but the clear implication, as we have been reporting with this just moments ago happening is that there was a ready movement on this jury to go forward with some kind of guilty verdict and that this one juror is not able to join. what you see observe in th-- ofn in that situation, the 12 jurors are alone in that room and there is no oversight. there is no court reporter or transcript and no judge. whatever is transpiring between the 12 people which we don't know has resulted in what we just learned that essentially the foreperson leading them is submitting to the judge that there is a deadlock and that it's all based on one person and somewhat unusual second note submitting a note from that person he or she explaining in his or her best english that she or she doesn't feel they can go forward with a guilty verdict. the implication being that is what others want to do and he or she feels bad about that. the language that mr. scott is a
1:29 pm
family member to his survivors that this is a sad thing but that she or she can't in good conscious go toward. that is what we are seeing. the next steps i would expect the judge wanting to confirm this is a true deadlock jury. if there is is no way for this jury to come together, then you have have officially a hung jury and the case basically goes back to the state and they can decide to try to retry it from scratch. >> what is the judge, a couple of questions for you. what does the judge need to hear or see or find out from the jury via the clerk who is right now in that deliberation room in order to, in fact, come to the conclusion that this jury is deadlocked? what is he looking for? >> it's a great question and one that lawyers argue over and that, quite frankly, jurors get confused over. what he is looking for is a good-faith exhaustion of the ability to reach a consensus. that doesn't mean you talk for an hour or two or looked over some testimony. it means a real searching
1:30 pm
process. those are the kind of languages you sometimes see but it doesn't mean you move people past their honest conclusions. so whether you have a 6/6 or 11/1. if any individual person says i've looked and listened and tried and in my heart this is my mondays conclusion. the system the judge and fellow jurors are not supposed to push past this. this is a gray area and of nuance. my interpretation, based on what we heard, given that this juror committed to paper that the foreperson committed to paper, my interpretation is we have the bottom of the ninth inning of a hung jury here, that we are not likely to see that change, given what they wrote and what the judge is doing now is trying to confirm 100% that this is the end of the line, that this is a hung jury and they cannot agree. then you move forward from there. it doesn't matter whether it's 11-1 or 6-6. hung jury is hung jury, mistrial. and then you don't have a verdict one way or another and
1:31 pm
the prosecutors can decide to retry the case. this is a case i don't have to tell people that has drawn a lot of interest in that community and around the country. >> you heard from the note from the foreperson referencing this lone juror with issues and it sounded almost like this foreperson was asking for that juror to be maybe dismissed? is that even an option or a possibility? that would be up to the judge, right? not any member of the jury? >> this is a key point. the people on the jury are citizens they find facts. that is what they do and that is their determination. so they have to find the facts of what happened in this shooting. the judge deals with the law. only the judge can make a legal determination about removing jurors. that would be for cause for some sort of demonstrated bias or other misconduct. so based on what we have heard and, again, it's just the judge reading excerpts of those notes. based on what we heard nobody struck from this jury at this point. what i understood that is the we
1:32 pm
are struggling with the situation and people's lives here and what may have been according to the foreperson's note an 11-1 standoff and desire by the people in that room to reach a unanimous consensus and what they have been asked to do and you see sometimes frustration with one holdout. i wanted to be precise here. we don't know what is going to happen. the way the the court system would traditionally resolve a standoff if it has been exhausted in discussion would be to declare a hung jury and a mistrial. >> we are seeing some movement here inside the courtroom? the camera panned off. before it did, we saw the attorneys, in fact, approach the bench and have a few words with the judge both the prosecutors and the defense attorney as well. we will continue to watch this. gabe gutierrez is continue to stand by in south carolina and we will monitor what is happening there and bring you the latest after the break. when it comes to healthcare,
1:33 pm
seconds can mean the difference between life and death. for partners in health, time is life. we have 18,000 people around the world. the microsoft cloud helps our entire staff stay connected and work together in real time to help those that need it. the ability to collaborate changes how we work. what we do together changes how we live.
1:34 pm
the medicare enrollment deadline is just a few days away. changes to medicare plans could impact your healthcare costs. are you getting all the benefits available to you? call healthmarkets and we'll help you find the medicare plan that's right for you. hi, i'm doctor [martin gizzi.] it's a new medicare year. that means more changes ... and more confusion. the key question is: what can you do now, to ensure you get the care you need in the coming year? call healthmarkets today. we have access to thousands of medicare options from leading insurance companies nationwide. plans that may... cost less... cover more ... with more choices... like dental and vision care ... and freedom to choose your own doctors all at a price you can afford. we help find the right plan for you. and we do it at no cost. make sure you have what you need to get the care that's right for you. if you miss the deadline, you may have to wait
1:35 pm
another year before enrolling. call [healthmarkets] now! because it knew an ordinary wastissue was near.ar. the fiery tissue left her nose sore and red. so dad slayed the problem with puffs plus lotion, instead. puffs have pillowy softness for dakota's tender nose. with lotion to comfort and soothe when she blows. don't get burned by ordinary tissues. a nose in need deserves puffs, indeed. now get puffs plus lotion in the squeezable softpack. ♪ everything your family touches sticks with them. make sure the germs they bring home don't stick around. use clorox disinfecting products. because no one kills germs better than clorox. we are back now after a remarkable development in that
1:36 pm
case in charleston, south carolina. the case of michael slagr, the former police officer who is now on trial in the shooting death of walter scott. here is what we know. the judge read a couple of notes within the last 20 minutes or so from the foreperson of the jury indicating that there is one, one lone juror who is unable to reach a conclusion. unable rather to find guilt. some sort of a guilty verdict. we don't know what charge this is, for example, but the judge also read an excerpt of a note from that particular juror man or woman indicating they cannot change their mind. right now the clerk is back in that jury room where the jury is deliberating trying to find out more information on whether, in fact, as signals show this jury is, quote, hopelessly deadlocked. the judge has to make that determination if there is that determination that will result in a mistrial. let's go to gabe gutierrez. we are monitoring everything
1:37 pm
that is happening inside the courthouse. as soon as we get developments we will break in. tell us what happens if there is a hung jury. what are the next steps after that? >> reporter: certainly. as you mentioned, a lot of drama inside that courthouse right now. as ari melber described a few minutes ago this could be the bottom of the ninth inning perhaps in this trial if it turns out to be a hung jury. as you mentioned the judge has not made that determination yet but we are waiting and it could happen any moment. what happens next if there is a mistrial? this case not only attracted a lot of attention here in north charleston but also around the country. you remember, the city of north charleston had already approved 6.5 million dollar civil settlement in this case and then after -- if it turns out to be a mistrial, there might be some pressure on the local prosecutor to retry this case. we don't know if the prosecutor will or not.
1:38 pm
but you must remember, michael slagr is also facing federal civil charges in a separate case and that will go to trial and expected to go to trial early next year. whether or not this does turn out to be a mistrial or somehow that lone juror changes his or her mind this case is not going to be over for quite sometime here in north charleston. the question will be what will the local prosecutor if it turns out to be a mistrial, what will the local prosecutor come back and tree try this case and perhaps not go for murder charge, perhaps go for just the manslaughter charge? we just don't know at this point. we are waiting right now. that clerk is asking the jury if they are hopelessly deadlocked and that could come at any moment. >> we have a no clue on time line here, right? we don't know how long this is going to take? >> it could happen at any moment. we have -- our team is there in
1:39 pm
the courtroom right now. i'm standing outside and watching a live courtroom feed. we don't know. it could be the next few minutes or takes perhaps a little longer. but that court clerk is asking the jury right now whether they are hopelessly deadlocked and we hope to find out shortly. >> gabe gutierrez standing by in south carolina as mentioned. we are continuing to look at that live feed coming in from the courthouse. as soon as we get developments you'll find them here on msnbc. in the meantime back to politics now. democratic leaders from across the country right now in denver to talk about who is in the running for the new dnc chair. here is a development. one of the folks not in the reasonable care is former governor howard dean. the laugh few minutes howard dean has announced he has taken us out of this race. a former onetime dnc chair and former governor. first talk about this, governor. why pull yourself out of running for this position? >> i feel strongly our party
1:40 pm
needs to turn itself over to the next generation and i'm very happy to stay in the background and help coach whoever the chair is. i just think that one of the problems that we had in this election we got to connect more with young people and that means not having faces like mine. look. i did this job, we did a great job. we really did. we came in 2009, excuse me, 2005 we didn't have the house, senate or the presidency. when we left in 2009 we had all three. but i really do think this needs to go to a younger person and move ourselves on to the next generation. >> what changed your mind, governor? the last 48 hours you were making a case you were the guy to lead the party and put in place a 50-state strategy and better organization. what changed the last day or two? >> actually, if you listen carefully to my discussions on msnbc, i didn't change very much. i've been saying that i thought we ought to turn the party tover a younger person for a long time and i do not believe we can have
1:41 pm
a chair that has two jobs. you cannot have a sitting politician in this job. >> some change. right? even though you may have been carefully on your words and what you wanted you are running and now you're not. i'm wondering was there some kind of a deal, what in your view changed? >> no. i made this decision two or three weeks ago. once i was in -- i got a quick lay of the land. i think that i would have and could have won just because of what we were able to accomplish the last time i was chair. but it also came very clear, this is what i said in the video to the dnc which is some of which is meeting in denver, it became clear to me that if we weren't careful, this would be a hillary versus bernie proxy fight. i was for hillary. keith elson one of the people running was for bernie and i didn't want that fight. two, if you really believe that you need to have young people attracted to the party, it's better to have a young person running. jamie harrison is a really, really good candidate. he may win. ray buckley is certainly very experienced and there may be others coming in. i may or may not make an
1:42 pm
endorsement down the line. i just think it's better for the whole party to move on. i know nancy pelosi just won reelection. i think she is great and i think i would have been great but it's time for a new generation and i hope that we will be doing that in this party. one last thing. >> you said endorsement down the line? will you make one now? you mentioned a couple of names. >> no. >> do you throw your support behind one of these folks? >> no. these candidates have to go out and make their own case. before i'm willing to pick anybody. there may well be some additional candidates coming in. you know, i've known for the 50-state strategy this time i want a 50/50 years. you continue to do that the rest of your life. we have a 50 year horizon to keep this party in power if we do it right. i intend to do what i think to make it right and i don't think as chairman i would be able to do to make it right. >> keith ellison has backing from big names within the party.
1:43 pm
is he somebody you're prepared to say that you support now that you're out of this race? >> i do not support keith as long as he has his congressional seat. i do not believe two-chair system work. we tried that eight years and it didn't work. some of the people involved in those chairs will tell you that. i did not believe at all that you can do this job and do another job in congress at the same time. so i don't support keith. maybe i will later but i don't now. >> was this a case for you, governor, of sort of seeing that perhaps you weren't -- you know, the stars were aligning maybe for a different contender for the chairmanship position and deciding to pull yourself out for that reason? maybe looking at the ball game and seeing it wasn't going in your direction? >> no. not at all. actually, i picked up two delegations in the first 15 minutes that was in the race. so that was not a consideration. the fact of the matter is -- keith, a wonderful long list of people i don't think none of them have a vote in the dnc. this was the last time i was the
1:44 pm
outside candidate. this time i probably would have been the establishment candidate. i didn't want that either. the last time the establishment ran six people against me one after another we knocked them off because the establishment doesn't have any votes in the dnc. 75 people from the dnc inside the beltway and 402 outside of the beltway and my constituency. >> any concerns for you when you look at who is in the running now you're out of the race for dnc chair, concerns the party is going to be pulled too far to the left? you talked about your worries about this becoming, you know, a clinton versus sanders proxy fight. >> this should not be an ideology cal fight. i know some believe it should be this direction or not that direction. this is not about ideology. anyone who runs to push the chair to push an ideology should not be the chair. this is mechanics and making sure each state has a very good organization and adequate staffing which we should pay for and dnc should pay for.
1:45 pm
this is about paying attention to city council races and state representative races where we got clobbered the last six years. it's not about ideology and shouldn't be about ideology. it's about mechanics and giving democrats the support they need to win around the country. >> you said you decided two weeks ago not to stay in the race. why wait until today to announce it publicly? >> this is when the dnc was meeting and give other people a chance to get in and see what they had to say and i decided a couple of weeks ago that i would put out the video which i did put out an hour or so ago at the dnc meeting in denver. >> howard dean, thank you very much for joining us. >> thank you. >> appreciate it. talk to you soon, i am sure. more news to come from you. i bring in charlie sites, msnbc contributor and milwaukee radio host and a political reporter from "the boston globe." a lot to discuss and start now what we heard from former governor howard dean. who should be the leader of the
1:46 pm
dnc moving forward? keith ellison or some of the other names that governor dean mentioned? what do you think? james, start with you. >> okay, great. look. i think we have still trying to figure out this emerging field for the democrats. i think it's fascinating right now is that if donald trump had lost this election, the republican national committee job would have been one of the first real litmus tests into the future of the republican party. people were ready to go. reince priebus would have been the first-ever natural party chair to lose two presidential elections in a row. ideological fight for trump. i don't think we see that playing out in the democratic party. democrats are shell-shocked three weeks now and what exactly happened and what direction. i think in a mode right now where this kind of conversation about, you know, leaving some with nancy pelosi reelection is not happening other than keith ellison making the argument in this race for democratic party
1:47 pm
chair and hard for a lot of people to get very excited about it right now. which could be good news for, say, the party chairs in south carolina and in new hampshire who are really arguing that this job is about mechanics as howard dean just said. >> charlie, let's talk republicans. a remarkable moment at the harvard forum last night in which you saw the top aides. we have been talking at it go at each other. what an exposure of just how raw these open wounds still are from the election. i want to play a little bit from that of what we heard. listen. my proudest moments of her her standing up and saying with courage and clarity and steve bannon own words and donald trump's own words the platform that they gave to white spremists, white nationalists and it was a very, very important moment in our history
1:48 pm
as our country. spremists, white and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. uspremists, whit and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. pspremists, whits and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. rspremists, whit nationalists and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. espremis nationalists and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. mspremis nationalists and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. ispremis nationalists and it was a very, very important moment in our history as our country. spremist it's hard to be a gracious loser. apparently it's also difficult to be a gracious winner. but that was remarkable. and i have to on tell you, i mean, this is still playing out on social media. this is playing out on talk radio. there are really, really raw emotions. i wouldn't expect that that is going to be the last blowup like that but that was riveting. you could not take your eyes off of that particular exchange. >> could you james?
1:49 pm
you were there in the room. was it awkward? what was the atmosphere like in there? >> yeah, remember, this is like a larger conference room but there are only about 150 to 200 people invited guests. the elite of media and political consultants, those who -- campaign managers ran these presidential campaign and like a wedding party. >> james? >> i'm so sorry, james. i got to cut you off and charlie as well because breaking news out of that courtroom in south carolina we have been watching. go there now to listen in. >> i ask for further explanation of the law so we will bring the jury in and have them confirm that they are hopelessly deadlocked and then declare this trial.
1:50 pm
as we are waiting, the judge in this case sounds like he is bringing the jury back into the room. as we waiting, gabe gutierrez has been listening into these developments. what you got, gabe? >> hey, there. significant developments as you mentioned there as the clerk went back and spoke with the jury and asked them if they were hopelessly deadlocked. the answer appears that to be yes. the defense now asking for a mistrial and we are awaiting the jury to come back into the courtroom at any moment now and expecting the judge to declare a mistrial in this case. again, this is a huge development here. this is a case that really attracted so much attention, not just here in south carolina, but across the country. this comes more than a
1:51 pm
month-long trial. longer of a 32, 33 days, including jury selection. the jury has been deliberating at this point over the span of three days for more than 16 hours. several options before them. whether to declare a guilty verdict on a murder charge, on voluntary manslaughter or acquittal. it appears at this point we are about to see the fourth option, a mistrial declared in this case. we are expecting that any second. the next step is whether the local prosecutor might decide to retry this case. we don't know if the local prosecutor will do that. but, again, michael slagr, the former north charleston police officer accused in this case still faces a federal civil rights trial early next year. as we wait for the jury to return to the courtroom, we are expecting the judge potentially to declare a mistrial on this. that's what the defense is asking for at this point. and we wait. any second now. >> you heard the judge say waiting for the jury to come
1:52 pm
back in and confirm that they are hopelessly deadlocked. ari melber has been standing by, chief legal correspondent at msnbc. about 20 minutes ago when we last spoke waiting for this moment you had this looks like the bottom of the ninth, towards a hung jury essentially. what is your sense now when you're listening to this? is that where we are headed? if we are, what happens next? >> in the case of manslaughter or murder regarding the shooting death of walter scott, we are in mistrial territory in all but technicalically confirming it. we are headed for a mistrial. what the judge just said from the bench, based on the written notes and based on conferring with basically the lawyers there and defense counsel, mr. slagr's counsel asking for a mistrial, ed in plain english, this looks like a mistrial. let me double-check it with the jurors themselves. so it is not legally happened yet but where it's headed and barring something weird like somebody saying, no, i didn't write that note that is where we are going.
1:53 pm
i want to rebrief again for folks trying to understand this from the note from what we are told is the one holdout. this -- i see the -- i see them standing so we may want to listen in as this, i believe, the jury would be entering the room. if we want to dip back in or you want me to read? >> hold off, ari. the attorneys rise as we believe the jury is entering the room so hold up on reading the note for now. only because i'm hearing we don't have audio from the courtroom at this point. let's listen in because we just got that audio. listen. >> the latest saying, yes, we are at a deadlock. is that correct? under our law, section 1471330 provides that when a jury returns a second time without having agreed on a verdict, the trial judge cannot send the jurors out again without the
1:54 pm
jurors' consent, unless the jurors request for further explanation of the law. do you believe that that was serving a useful purpose? >> i do. >> do you believe that further explanation of the law will result in the jury being able to reach a verdict, or do you believe that the jury is hopelessly deadlocked? >> i believe an explanation of the law. would help us reach the unanimous verdict. >> all right. i ask you to go to the jury room as i confer with counsel and have you come back. >> thank you.
1:55 pm
>> so the judge explaining to the jury that in order to allow them to continue deliberations, if, in fact, what they wanted to do, they are essentially required to ask for a more thorough explanation of the law and it appears as though that is a foreperson has said that they want more of an explanation of the law and perhaps that would help them reach some sort of conclusion here. ari melber is our chief legal correspondent. is this what we expected? there was some potential discussion maybe the jury would confirm they were hopelessly deadlocked. >> what we are seeing is simply an illustration of the same standoff. to help viewers know what we just watched. the person speaking there with the judge is the foreperson. and she was basically saying, yes, let's keep trying to reach a verdict and anything would help. in this case under the legal
1:56 pm
rules an explanation of the law although they have gotten a lot of that already. she is on the side, according to her notes, of some kind of verdict here. we believe a guilty verdict based on the written notes she just submitted to the judge this afternoon. the holdout is the other person the one gabe gutierrez and i were reporting on, that other juror, one out of 12 who is holdout. that person was not speaking. what i think we just saw was the illustration of this standoff what according to the notes is an 11-1 standoff. the only thing that would matter now is if that one person changed his mind so i will read briefly from the letter brand new in the past hour as you know. this juror was explaining why he can't go to a guilty verdict and said, quote, i understand the position of the court. i can't in good conscious considering a guilty verdict and goes on to say i respect the position of my fellow jurors some of which oppose my position and expect those holding opposing views not to change their minds because i see them as good, honest people. that is the standoff.
1:57 pm
that one juror holdout saying he doesn't think he will return the other 11 and goes out of his way saying he thinks they are good and honest and doing what they think is right and saying he is not changing his mind. i think what we just saw and say this with no disrespect to the system and explain is buying a little more time for the jurors to talk to each other and get an instruction on the law. but if that written letter remains true and that person is not changing their mind, then according to them, some additional instruction saints probably going to do it which means we would be headed still for a deadlocked jury. >> when you read that note and we think what has unfold would essentially in the last, what, 45 minutes here, it appears from the language in that note that this juror is incredibly -- a lot of emotion in this, right? there is a lot of sort of value judgment and emotion and in a process like this in deliberating such a serious case. >> absolutely. this is our system. this is what it looks like. you have two lives in the balance. one is already lost, mr. scott. and it is his death that is at
1:58 pm
the core of the trial. mr. slagr's life also hangs in the balance when you look up to potentially 30 years in prison. you see this in a lot of trials. you see jurors struggling with that, taking their role seriously, looking at the evidence, debating each other and in this case, an 11-1 means that one person, obviously, has strong views and is standing up to the rest of them for the reasons they have reached. the other point that i would note, again, given what we have, which is not the whole story yet. >> right. >> is the foreperson referred to this person whose letter i just quoted is having, quote, issues or that there is some sort of tension there as well. there may be the view these are good, honest people and there's some attempt by them to have a dialogue and, yet, a frustration or perhaps even more than a frustration with the foreperson and the other jurors. to widen our lens, of course, this is not a typical case. the vast majority of cases involving homicide allegations
1:59 pm
do not have evidence, video of the homicide itself. this is a case where everyone brings a view to it who has learned about it. jurors and people in the community and the country because you had that very disturbing video of mr. scott appearing it retreat running away and shot in the back at a 15-foot range. i would put it simply that the video looked like a crime. and then the defense of officer slagr you have to look beyond the video to other things that happened before that weren't on the video. obviously, a case we will continue to watch until we have any final answer on has what this jury will do. >> very quick point of clarification here. if, in fact, at some point in the afternoon or the early evening the jury come back and indicate it is hopelessly deadlocked we know the defense has asked for a mistrial. is that essentially all but certainty at that point? does the judge have any other choice but to declare a mistrial? >> the judge merely has to confirm that this is completely deadlocked in the views of the jurors. if the judge reaches that view, it's over. >> ari, thank you so much.
2:00 pm
gabe gutierrez reporting us from south carolina. that does it for this very busy 60 minutes! "mtp daily starts now." yep, it's friday. words matter or do they? tonight but seriously, folks. why donald trump says you shouldn't take donald trump at his word. except when you should. >> that was a euphemism. >> the general selection. first flynn. then mattis. are there more generals to come? how many generals can fit in the trump cabinet? and president-elect trump, did he ever plan to pick mitt romney for state or was it all payback to humiliate a former foe? this is "mtp daily." and it starts right now. it's friday. good evening. i'm

39 Views

1 Favorite

info Stream Only

Uploaded by TV Archive on